Most of these “terrorists” will not get the death penalty, or life in prison (KSM aside). That’s not to say they did not commit any crimes, but it will be of the material support variety, and they just won’t have done enough wrong to warrant such a long sentence.
For instance, one of bin laden’s drivers and bodyguards, caught with two SA7 rocket launchers in the trunk, was charged with material support. Prosecutors wanted 30 years to life. He received, by a military jury, 5.5 years.
You could argue that this is true of most murder trials that actually come to trial. I think that the conviction rate on these is well over 90%.
Partly because of the cost involved, most prosecutors won’t take a major case to trial unless they are pretty sure the evidence is overwhelming. If it’s less than that, they usually negotiate a plea bargain for a lesser charge.
If they’re convicted of murder have them be sentenced to death and carry it out quickly as possible.
Not if they’re tried in a state without the death penalty. And not if the crime doesn’t warrant it in that state.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that a prosecutor who argues that the death penalty be applied so as to assuage the fear that some future president might pardon the defendant some time down the road would not get his way.
I’d still like to know the names of these leftist terrorists you mentioned, the ones Clinton pardoned.
Would this entail making new, exceptionary laws just for them, on the (I believe correct) assumption regular criminal or military law Does Not Work That Way ?
The trials are under federal law which use the death penalty. Plus the claim I made came from some fuzzy memory from the book Weird California which discussed Patty Hearst.
I don’t think federal law allows it in order to ensure against pardon by liberal presidents in some guy’s nightmarish future.
I think it will depend on the judge. As in the OJ case, I think Judge Ito was mostly responsible for that. Ito liked being in the spotlight and having the news focus on him.
This is not to say he could’ve eliminate all the fuss, but he didn’t even seem to try.
If they get a good judge who knows how to properly conduct a case of such celebrity, it will be a minimal circus. If they get another Ito that likes the limelight, well watch out
Surely you’re not comparing dodging the draft to outright terrorism? :rolleyes:
If you are, that’s sick.
No I’m not. But draft dodgers are still very severe criminals.
No.
Why?
Ah yes so defying an order by the government during a state of war isn’t a severe crime. :dubious:
Depends on what said order is. And what about soldiers who’ve defied orders they considered unlawful, or unethical? What then?
It did not violate the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention.
Their only “crime” was in not having the money, education, and family connections to get endless deferements or join a champagne unit. Upper and middle class sons get to stay home, working class lads get to choose between being cannon fodder or criminals. Or that Congress never even bothered declaring war, the US wasn’t under attack, and given that less than 10% of draft age men were actually draftered it’s hard to imagine they made any kind of impact on military readiness.
It was still ordered by the government. Undoubtedly there were many soldiers who were opposed to the war yet still fought in it out of duty for the nation or because it was an order. How do you think they would feel about those weak kneed cowards who fled to Canada (or Europe)?